Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 2002다4429 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/6656 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 2002다4429

Claim for Reimbursement (구상금)구상금

Decided2002. 09. 04. Court대법원Insurer won (보험자 승소)
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

This case concerns a person formally registered as a corporate director (이사) who was, in substance, functioning as an employee (근로자) under the company's control. The Korean Supreme Court held that such a person qualifies as a worker under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산재보험법), triggering the exemption clause (면책조항) commonly found in automobile insurance policies. The Court also ruled that in cases of joint tort (공동불법행위), each insurer's reimbursement liability should be calculated based on the full amount of the compulsory liability insurance (책임보험) limit.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA person formally registered as a corporate director was injured in a car accident while actually working under the company's direction as a regular employee.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that the person's substantive employment status—not the formal director title—governed industrial accident insurance coverage, which in turn activated the automobile insurance exemption clause and required insurers to calculate reimbursement based on the full liability insurance limit.
  • LessonCompanies and insurers should evaluate actual working relationships rather than relying solely on formal titles, since substantively employed individuals remain covered by industrial accident insurance regardless of their nominal corporate position.
Issues
  • The criteria for determining employee status of a person formally registered as a corporate director
  • Whether the automobile insurance exemption clause applies when the injured party is covered under industrial accident insurance
  • The proper scope of reimbursement claims (구상금) among insurers in cases of joint tort liability
Key reasoning

The Court reasoned that employee status should be determined based on the substantive relationship of subordination and control between the parties, not merely on formal corporate registration as a director. Even though the injured person was officially registered as a company director, the actual working conditions—being directed and supervised like an ordinary employee—meant they qualified as a 'worker' under industrial accident insurance law. Because this person was covered by industrial accident insurance, the standard exemption clause in automobile insurance policies (which excludes coverage for employees already covered by industrial accident insurance) properly applied. Furthermore, when multiple insurers share liability for a joint tort, the reimbursement calculation among insurers must be based on the full statutory limit of the compulsory liability insurance, rather than a reduced or prorated amount.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] Whether a person qualifies as a worker under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) and the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) should be determined, regardless of the form of the contract, according to whether, in substance, the person provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages, and not according to whether the person was registered as a director in the corporate registry.

[2] Where the victim of an automobile accident is an employee of the insured who is liable for damages and is a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, the exemption clause in the standard automobile comprehensive insurance policy, which provides that the insurer shall not compensate the insured for damages incurred as a result of such accident, is intended, in principle, to have industrial accident compensation cover accident compensation arising from labor relations, and to exclude such compensation from the scope of bodily injury liability coverage under automobile insurance, which is aimed at covering liability for damages to third parties. Accordingly, where the victim is a person entitled to receive accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the insurer is not liable to the insured pursuant to the above exemption clause. Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 6(1) and Article 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (before its full amendment by Act No. 4826 of December 22, 1994), unless the business falls under the proviso of Article 4 of the same Act or Article 2 of its Enforcement Decree, the business operator automatically becomes an insured party of industrial accident compensation insurance, and the insurance relationship is established on the date the business commences. Therefore, when an employee belonging to a business, whose operator has thus become automatically insured after commencing the business, suffers an occupational accident, the employee may naturally claim payment of insurance benefits under the said Act, and it is not the case that insurance benefits may be claimed only for occupational accidents occurring after the business operator has completed procedures such as filing a report on the establishment of the insurance relationship or paying insurance premiums as prescribed in Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Accordingly, the above exemption clause does not apply only where the injured employee has actually received insurance benefits.

[3] According to Article 5 of the former Automobile Liability Compensation Guarantee Act (자동차손해배상보장법) and Article 3(1) of its Enforcement Decree (before amendment by Presidential Decree No. 14736 of July 14, 1995), a person who has registered a motor vehicle or reported its use must without exception subscribe to liability insurance under which, in the event that another person is killed or injured due to the operation of the motor vehicle, the insurer bears liability to pay the victim an amount prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the liability insurance amount payable to each victim is based on a maximum of 15,000,000 won in the case of a deceased victim. In light of the nature of such liability insurance, where two or more motor vehicles covered by liability insurance are jointly involved in a single accident, each insurer must be construed as bearing liability to pay the victim the full amount of its own liability insurance limit, up to the amount of the victim's damages. Therefore, where the amount paid by an insurer to the victim pursuant to an insurance contract concluded with one of the joint tortfeasors in an automobile accident, calculated according to the negligence ratio of another joint tortfeasor, exceeds the liability insurance limit in effect at the time of the accident, then, in a claim for indemnity against the other joint tortfeasor pursuant to insurer subrogation, the amount of indemnity to be borne by that joint tortfeasor and the insurer shall be the full amount of the liability insurance limit.

Full text (English, AI translation) 8,310 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee and Appellant] Korea Trucking Association (Attorneys Kim Dal-hee and 1 other, Counsel for the plaintiff)
[Defendant, Appellant and Appellee] Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Hyung-su, Counsel for the defendant)
[Judgment Below] Daegu High Court Decision 2001Na3505 decided December 13, 2001

[Order]

All appeals are dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

[Reasoning]

1. As to the Plaintiff's Grounds of Appeal

Whether a person constitutes a worker under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) and the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) must be determined not by the form of the contract but by whether, in substance, the person provided labor to an employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da22591 decided September 8, 2000; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da57498 decided February 9, 2001, etc.). It should not be determined based on whether the person was registered as a director in the corporate registry.

According to the record, although the deceased, the non-party, was registered as a director of the non-party Daedeok Tower Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Daedeok Tower"), it can be seen that he in fact worked as the manager in charge of the inn, sauna, and restaurant operated by Daedeok Tower. Therefore, the lower court's determination that the liability to pay insurance proceeds under Bodily Injury Liability Coverage II was exempted, on the ground that the non-party was a director of Daedeok Tower, pursuant to the exemption clause of the commercial motor vehicle insurance policy at issue in this case, was erroneous.

However, the exemption clause in the standard comprehensive automobile insurance policy, which provides that the insurer shall not compensate for damages suffered by the insured due to an accident where the victim of the automobile accident is an employee of the insured who bears liability for compensation and is a person eligible to receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act, has its purpose in excluding, from the scope of Bodily Injury Liability Coverage under automobile insurance—which is intended to cover liability for damages to third parties—matters concerning accident compensation arising in labor relations, which are, in principle, to be compensated through industrial accident compensation insurance. Accordingly, where the victim is a person eligible to receive accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the insurer shall not be liable to the insured under the above exemption clause. Meanwhile, according to Article 6(1) and Article 7 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (before its full amendment by Act No. 4826 of December 22, 1994), an employer of a business is, as a matter of course, deemed to be a policyholder of industrial accident compensation insurance, and the insurance relationship is established as of the date of commencement of the business, unless the business falls under the proviso of Article 4 of the same Act or Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, where an employee belonging to a business operated by an employer who is thus automatically enrolled suffers an occupational accident after the commencement of the business, the employee is naturally entitled to claim payment of insurance benefits under the said Act, and it is not the case that only occupational accidents occurring after the employer completes procedures such as filing a report of the establishment of an insurance relationship or paying insurance premiums under Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are eligible for a claim for insurance benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da39540 decided November 24, 1995). Accordingly, the above exemption clause does not apply only where the injured employee has actually received insurance benefits.

The lower court, upon comprehensive consideration of the adopted evidence, found that the death of the deceased non-party constituted an occupational accident under the Labor Standards Act, and that, since the business operated by Daedeok Tower did not fall under the businesses set forth in the proviso of Article 4 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (before its full amendment by Act No. 4826 of December 22, 1994) and Article 2 (Businesses Excluded from Application) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Daedeok Tower was, as a matter of course, a policyholder of industrial accident compensation insurance pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of the same Act, with the insurance relationship established as of the date of commencement of the said business. The lower court thus found that insurance benefits would naturally be paid with respect to the deceased's occupational accident, and accordingly determined that the Defendant's liability to pay insurance proceeds under Bodily Injury Liability Coverage II was exempted pursuant to the exemption clause under Article 10(2)4 of the commercial motor vehicle insurance policy.

Examining the above legal principles in light of the record, the lower court's determination that the Defendant's liability to pay insurance proceeds under Bodily Injury Liability Coverage II is exempted is justified in its conclusion, and the aforementioned error in the lower court's reasoning did not affect the outcome of the judgment. Therefore, the Plaintiff's grounds of appeal are ultimately without merit.

2. As to the Defendant's Grounds of Appeal

According to Article 5 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (자동차손해배상보장법) and Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (before its amendment by Presidential Decree No. 14736 of July 14, 1995), a person who has registered a motor vehicle or reported its use must obtain liability insurance under which, in the event that another person dies or is injured due to the operation of the motor vehicle, the insurer is liable to pay the victim an amount determined by Presidential Decree, and the liability insurance amount payable to each victim is based on a maximum of 15,000,000 won in the case of death. In light of the nature of the said liability insurance, where two or more motor vehicles covered by liability insurance are jointly involved in a single accident, each insurer must be construed as being liable to pay the victim the full amount of its respective liability insurance limit, up to the amount of the victim's damages (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Da38132 decided April 18, 2002). Accordingly, where, among the amount paid by an insurer to a victim pursuant to an insurance contract concluded with one of the joint tortfeasors in an automobile accident, the amount corresponding to the negligence ratio of another joint tortfeasor exceeds the liability insurance limit in effect at the time of the accident in question, then, in a claim for reimbursement against the other joint tortfeasor based on the insurer's subrogation, the amount of reimbursement to be borne by the said joint tortfeasor and its insurer shall be the full amount of the liability insurance limit.

The lower court, holding to the same effect, determined that the Defendant, as the insurer of Daedeok Tower, was obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the mutual aid business operator of the joint tortfeasor in this case, the amount of 10,000,000 won, which is the maximum liability insurance limit of 15,000,000 won minus the 5,000,000 won already paid by the Defendant to the bereaved family of the deceased victim as part of the liability insurance proceeds after the occurrence of the accident in this case. This determination is justified, and there is no error in the lower court's judgment involving a misapprehension of the legal principles concerning reimbursement relationships between joint tortfeasors or concerning liability insurance, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by each losing party. It is so decided as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Presiding Justice Son Ji-yeol
Justice Jo Mu-je
Justice Yoo Ji-dam (Presiding Judge for Preparation)
Justice Kang Shin-wook

【판결요지】

[1] 산업재해보상보험법 및 근로기준법상의 근로자에 해당하는지 여부는 계약의 형식에 관계없이 그 실질에 있어서 임금을 목적으로 종속적인 관계에서 사용자에게 근로를 제공하였는지 여부에 따라 근로자임을 판단하여야 할 것이지, 법인등기부에 이사로 등기되었는지 여부에 따라 판단할 것은 아니다.

[2] 자동차사고의 피해자가 배상책임 있는 피보험자의 피용자로서 근로기준법에 의한 재해보상을 받을 수 있는 사람인 경우에 그 사고로 인하여 피보험자가 입게 된 손해를 보험자가 보상하지 아니하기로 정한 자동차종합보험 보통약관상의 면책조항은 노사관계에서 발생하는 재해보상에 대하여는 원칙적으로 산업재해보상보험에 의하여 전보받도록 하고 제3자에 대한 손해배상책임을 전보하는 것을 목적으로 한 자동차보험의 대인배상 범위에서는 이를 제외하려는 데 그 취지가 있는 것이므로, 피해자가 산업재해보상보험법에 의한 재해보상을 받을 수 있는 사람인 경우에는 보험자는 위의 면책약관에 따라 피보험자에 대하여 보상책임을 지지 아니하게 되는 것이고, 한편 구 산업재해보상보험법(1994. 12. 22. 법률 제4826호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조 제1항, 제7조의 각 규정에 의하면, 사업의 사업주는 동법 제4조 단서, 동법시행령 제2조의 사업이 아닌 한 당연히 산업재해보상보험의 보험가입자가 되어 당해 사업개시일에 보험관계가 성립하는 것으로 규정하고 있으므로 위와 같이 당연 가입되는 사업주가 사업을 개시한 후에 그 사업에 소속한 근로자가 업무상 재해를 입은 때에는 그는 당연히 위 법 소정의 보험급여의 지급을 청구할 수 있다고 할 것이고, 사업주가 동법시행령 제4조 제1항 소정의 보험관계 성립의 신고를 하거나 보험료를 납부하는 등의 절차를 밟은 후에 발생한 업무상 재해에 한하여 보험급여의 지급을 청구할 수 있는 것은 아니므로, 재해를 입은 근로자가 보험급여를 실제로 지급받은 경우에 한하여 위 면책조항이 적용되는 것은 아니다.

[3] 구 자동차손해배상보장법 제5조, 같은법시행령(1995. 7. 14. 대통령령 제14736호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항에 의하면, 자동차의 등록 또는 사용신고를 한 자는 반드시 자동차의 운행으로 다른 사람이 사망하거나 부상할 경우에 피해자에게 대통령령이 정하는 금액의 지급책임을 지는 책임보험에 가입하여야 하며, 피해자 1인에게 지급하여야 할 책임보험금은 사망자의 경우 최고 1,500만 원을 기준으로 한다고 규정하고 있는바, 위 책임보험의 성질에 비추어 책임보험에 가입되어 있는 2 이상의 자동차가 공동으로 하나의 사고에 관여한 경우, 각 보험자는 피해자의 손해액을 한도로 하여 각자의 책임보험 한도액 전액을 피해자에게 지급할 책임을 진다고 새겨야 할 것이므로, 보험자가 자동차 사고의 공동불법행위자 중 1인과 체결한 보험계약에 따라 피해자에게 배상한 금액 중 다른 공동불법행위자의 과실비율에 따른 금액이 사고 당시의 책임보험한도액을 초과하는 경우에는, 보험자 대위에 따라 다른 공동불법행위자에게 구상금을 청구하는 경우에 그 공동불법행위자 및 보험자가 부담하는 구상금은 책임보험금의 한도액 전액이 된다.

【참조조문】

[1] 근로기준법 제14조, 산업재해보상보험법 제4조

[2] 상법 제659조, 구 산업재해보상보험법(1994. 12. 22. 법률 제4826호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조(현행 제5조 참조), 제6조 제1항(현행 제7조 제1항 참조), 제7조(현행 제10조 참조)

[3] 구 자동차손해배상보장법(1999. 2. 5. 법률 제5793호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제5조, 구 자동차손해배상보장법시행령(1995. 7. 14. 대통령령 제14736호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 2000. 9. 8. 선고 2000다22591 판결(공2000하, 2096), 대법원 2001. 2. 9. 선고 2000다57498 판결(공2001상, 623), 대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2000다27671 판결(공2002하, 2031) / [2] 대법원 1995. 3. 14. 선고 93다42238 판결(공1995상, 1596), 대법원 1995. 11. 24. 선고 95다39540 판결(공1996상, 148) / [3] 대법원 2002. 4. 18. 선고 99다38132 전원합의체 판결(공2002상, 1206), 대법원 2002. 7. 23. 선고 2002다24461, 24478 판결(공2002하, 2024)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 2,958자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인 겸 상고인】 전국화물자동차운송사업연합회 (소송대리인 변호사 김달희 외 1인)

【피고, 상고인 겸 피상고인】 현대해상화재보험 주식회사 (소송대리인 변호사 김형수)

【원심판결】 대구고법 2001. 12. 13. 선고 2001나3505 판결

【주 문】

상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 각자의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 1. 원고의 상고이유에 대하여

산업재해보상보험법 및 근로기준법상의 근로자에 해당하는지 여부는 계약의 형식에 관계없이 그 실질에 있어서 임금을 목적으로 종속적인 관계에서 사용자에게 근로를 제공하였는지 여부에 따라 근로자임을 판단하여야 할 것이지(대법원 2000. 9. 8. 선고 2000다22591 판결, 2001. 2. 9. 선고 2000다57498 판결 등 참조), 법인등기부에 이사로 등기되었는지 여부에 따라 판단할 것은 아니다.

기록에 의하면, 망 소외인은 소외 대덕타워 주식회사(이하 '대덕타워'라고 한다)의 이사로 등기되어 있기는 하나, 사실은 대덕타워가 운영하는 여관, 사우나, 식당의 관리주임으로 근무하였던 사실을 알 수 있으므로 소외인이 대덕타워의 이사임을 이유로 이 사건 업무용자동차보험약관의 면책규정에 따라 대인배상Ⅱ에 의한 보험금지급책임이 면제된다고 한 원심의 판단은 잘못이라 할 것이다.

그러나 자동차사고의 피해자가 배상책임 있는 피보험자의 피용자로서 근로기준법에 의한 재해보상을 받을 수 있는 사람인 경우에 그 사고로 인하여 피보험자가 입게 된 손해를 보험자가 보상하지 아니하기로 정한 자동차종합보험 보통약관상의 면책조항은 노사관계에서 발생하는 재해보상에 대하여는 원칙적으로 산업재해보상보험에 의하여 전보받도록 하고 제3자에 대한 손해배상책임을 전보하는 것을 목적으로 한 자동차보험의 대인배상 범위에서는 이를 제외하려는 데 그 취지가 있는 것이므로, 피해자가 산업재해보상보험법에 의한 재해보상을 받을 수 있는 사람인 경우에는 보험자는 위의 면책약관에 따라 피보험자에 대하여 보상책임을 지지 아니하게 되는 것이고, 한편 구 산업재해보상보험법(1994. 12. 22. 법률 제4826호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조 제1항, 제7조의 각 규정에 의하면, 사업의 사업주는 동법 제4조 단서, 동법시행령 제2조의 사업이 아닌 한 당연히 산업재해보상보험의 보험가입자가 되어 당해 사업개시일에 보험관계가 성립하는 것으로 규정하고 있으므로 위와 같이 당연 가입되는 사업주가 사업을 개시한 후에 그 사업에 소속한 근로자가 업무상 재해를 입은 때에는 그는 당연히 위 법 소정의 보험급여의 지급을 청구할 수 있다고 할 것이고, 사업주가 동법시행령 제4조 제1항 소정의 보험관계 성립의 신고를 하거나 보험료를 납부하는 등의 절차를 밟은 후에 발생한 업무상 재해에 한하여 보험급여의 지급을 청구할 수 있는 것은 아니므로(대법원 1995. 11. 24. 선고 95다39540 판결 참조), 재해를 입은 근로자가 보험급여를 실제로 지급받은 경우에 한하여 위 면책조항이 적용되는 것은 아니다.

원심이 채택증거를 종합하여, 망 소외인의 사망은 근로기준법상의 업무상 재해에 해당하고, 대덕타워가 영위하는 사업이 구 산업재해보상보험법(1994. 12. 22. 법률 제4826호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 단서, 같은법시행령 제2조(적용제외사업장)의 사업장에 해당되지 아니하는 이상, 대덕타워는 같은 법 제6조, 제7조의 각 규정에 의하여 당연히 산업재해보상보험의 보험가입자가 되어 위 사업개시일에 보험관계가 성립되므로, 위 망인의 업무상 재해에 관하여는 당연히 보험급여가 지급될 것이라고 인정한 다음, 피고는 업무용자동차보험약관 제10조 제2항 제4호의 면책규정에 의하여 대인배상Ⅱ에 의한 보험금지급책임이 면제된다고 판단하였다.

위와 같은 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 피고의 대인배상Ⅱ에 의한 보험금지급책임이 면제된다는 원심의 판단은 결론에 있어서 정당하고, 앞서 본 원심의 잘못은 판결 결과에 영향이 없으므로, 원고의 상고이유 주장은 결국 이유 없다.

2. 피고의 상고이유에 대하여

구 자동차손해배상보장법 제5조, 같은법시행령(1995. 7. 14. 대통령령 제14736호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항에 의하면, 자동차의 등록 또는 사용신고를 한 자는 반드시 자동차의 운행으로 다른 사람이 사망하거나 부상할 경우에 피해자에게 대통령령이 정하는 금액의 지급책임을 지는 책임보험에 가입하여야 하며, 피해자 1인에게 지급하여야 할 책임보험금은 사망자의 경우 최고 1,500만 원을 기준으로 한다고 규정하고 있는바, 위 책임보험의 성질에 비추어 책임보험에 가입되어 있는 2 이상의 자동차가 공동으로 하나의 사고에 관여한 경우, 각 보험자는 피해자의 손해액을 한도로 하여 각자의 책임보험 한도액 전액을 피해자에게 지급할 책임을 진다고 새겨야 할 것이므로(대법원 2002. 4. 18. 선고 99다38132 전원합의체 판결 참조), 보험자가 자동차 사고의 공동불법행위자 중 1인과 체결한 보험계약에 따라 피해자에게 배상한 금액 중 다른 공동불법행위자의 과실비율에 따른 금액이 이 사건 사고 당시의 책임보험한도액을 초과하는 경우에는, 보험자 대위에 따라 다른 공동불법행위자에게 구상금을 청구하는 경우에 그 공동불법행위자 및 보험자가 부담하는 구상금은 책임보험금의 한도액 전액이 된다.

원심이 같은 취지에서, 대덕타워의 보험자인 피고는 이 사건 공동불법행위자의 공제사업자인 원고에게 위 책임보험금 최고한도액인 15,000,000원 전액에서 이미 피고가 이 사건 사고 발생 후에 피해자인 망인 측에 책임보험금의 일부로서 지급한 5,000,000원을 공제한 10,000,000원을 지급할 의무가 있다고 판단하였음은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같은 공동불법행위자 사이의 구상관계나 책임보험에 관한 법리를 오해한 위법이 없다.

3. 그러므로 상고를 모두 기각하고, 상고비용은 패소자 각자의 부담으로 하기로 하여 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 손지열(재판장) 조무제 유지담(주심) 강신욱

Related statutes

산업재해보상보험법 제6조산업재해보상보험법 제7조근로기준법자동차손해배상보장법 제5조

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2022다214750 · 대법원 2025-04-24
Claim for Reimbursement (구상금)
#2
93다5192 · 대법원 1993-06-08
Reimbursement (Indemnity Claim)
#3
2000다19021 · 대법원 2000-09-29
Reimbursement (Indemnity Claim)
#4
2015나10026 · 대전고등법원 2015-10-14
Reimbursement (Indemnity Claim)
#5
2015가단214797 · 대전지방법원 2016-10-27
Reimbursement (Indemnity Claim)

Cases citing this decision

2022다214750 · 대법원 2025-04-24
Claim for Reimbursement (구상금)
2018다237817 · 대법원 2018-10-25
Claim for Indemnity (구상금)
2009두1440 · 대법원 2009-08-20
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits
2006두15622 · 대법원 2007-02-08
보험급여금대체지급부지급취소

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)